Friday, April 25, 2008

Humanity is One... Unfortunately

Why is it that these Buddhist trolls who believe the self is an illusion always have the most unattractive selves? I suppose it's like an unappealing woman who becomes a feminist and decides that gender is just a social construct anyway, so she can pretend she's not missing anything. Likewise, what these vulgarized Buddhists call "emptiness" we call a "major blind spot." It doesn't reflect well on Buddhism, which obviously has its share of perennial wisdom, even if it can never be "ultimate."

I just read a book by one of these blinkered new-age Buddhist types, and all I can say is, if your prose has the capacity to set my teeth on edge, you're probably not as liberated as you think. Rather, you're just in denial of the malignant power of your self, or, at the very least, unaware of the aesthetic requirements of Truth. (Of course, this has no common measure with the inevitable psychic "disturbance" caused by genuine sages, saints, and mystics, which is a mark of authenticity, Jesus being absolutely paradigmatic in this regard. Only the ultimate Life could inspire the ultimate murder in the wrong type of people.)

No, the body and the Self (as opposed to the local and contingent ego) are both real and enduring (i.e., the Real is reflected in both body and Self). Last night the Dreamer provided me with another vivid reminder of this. As I have said before, for all practical purposes, I don't think you can really eliminate mind parasites, any more than you could eliminate all the bacteria and viruses from the world (nor would you want to). But you can "outgrow" your mind parasites. Or, put it this way: if you have a particularly disruptive and dysfunctional mind parasite, you can confront it head on, say, in therapy, and gain insight into its ways and means and try to rid yourself of its mean ways.

But in a more general sense, it is also possible to simply become "larger" and more capacious than your mind parasites, so that they no longer contain you, but rather, the reverse: you contain them by virtue of your psychic "growth" or maturity, and mind parasites can't grow if you don't feed them with the experiences they require. I suppose it's similar to having a robust immune system that can either ward off infections or tamp them down before they get out of hand. An immature or compromised immune system can't do that. The point is that the same infection -- say, the flu -- can be deadly for a person with a compromised immune system, e.g., children, the elderly, AIDS patients, but not a big problem for others. Same parasite; very different result.

Just so, the identical mind parasite -- let's say, envy, because it is so ubiquitous and pesky -- can be contained in one person, but become the ruling passion (i.e., the container) of another, say, a leftist. In so many ways, the left is simply the mind parasite of envy writ large, the normalization of a particular soul-pathology. And once the parasite is normalized, there is no hope of transcending it.

To cite an obvious example, you often hear clueless leftist neo-Marxist elites such as Obama say that they just don't understand how a middle class conservative can "vote against his economic interests" -- which is just another way of saying that they just don't understand people who aren't plagued by envy. Of course the little people are envious. They just channel it into guns, or religion, or homophobia, or voting Republican.

But in truth, affluent leftist elites -- the Hollywood herd of independent minds is the quintessential example -- merely project their own envy into "the little people" for whom they have such palpable contempt, under the guise of "caring" about them. This is why the ministrations of the leftist always feel so creepy and malignant to a normal person. It feels so creepy because it is so narcissistic and "off key," and has nothing to do with your actual personhood. Rather, it specifically robs you of your unique personhood -- which is your most precious gift, being that it represents "freedom lived" (in the higher sense).

For example, I heard someone say that Obama's understanding of the average American seems about as deep as a Bruce Springsteen song, to such an extent that he should appoint him Secretary of Labor. Now, I was a union member and working class stiff for half of my adult life, and it was strictly laughable that Springsteen's depressingly cartoonish vision of a blue collar American Hell had anything to do with my life.

In fact, based upon his morose lyrics, I am quite sure that my life -- and my internal world -- was more rewarding than his. I certainly wouldn't want to be him for anything. I mean imagine, if you will, the darkness of someone who confesses to actually receiving spiritual sustenance from Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman. That is quite literally hell, equivalent to gaining "intellectual sustenance" from Air America or huffingtonpost.

Unlike me, Springsteen was and is a pampered millionaire who has never worked a day in his life. But outward circumstances do not alter the contours of the self, which again, endures. In Springsteen's case, he had to do something with his envy, since it could no longer be rationalized, so he simply put it into people like me. At the same time, he became a leftist, which allowed him to be free of my imaginary (projected) envy of him, since now the government will "appease" my (his) envy by taking away stuff from "the wealthy" and giving it to contemptible losers like me. I wish that Springsteen would just stop voting against his economic interests and leave me alone.

The whole thing is so transparent. When the left complains about "tax cuts for the wealthy," this is simply their psychic transformation of greed and envy into a bogus altruism that allows their parasites to "sleep." But these parasites never sleep, as the Dreamer reminded me last night. What the leftist really means is that "poor people are envious of my stuff, so we'd better give these losers some 'free' stuff from the government, so I won't feel so persecuted by my undeserved wealth." This is why all the Hollywood entertainers complain about "CEO pay" or "income disparity," but not a single one of them complains about the excessive salaries of movie stars or rappers. You will never see Sean Penn structure his contract so there is not such a chasm between his salary and that of the lowly set carpenter or assistant editor.

The self does not end at your skin boundaries, that's for sure. Projection is going on all the time, and it's best to try to understand what you're projecting rather than imagining that you are free of this ubiquitous mechanism. You may not feel your toxicity, but that's because we do.

In other words, before you blithely proclaim that "all is one," you had better understand what this implies, i.e., its dark side of unwanted psychic influences passed from mind to mind. Obviously this applies on both the micro (individual) and macro (collective) levels, and both above and below. For example, Obama's bogus call for "unity" is actually just tyranny in disguise, since his notion of "bringing us together" is "to have conservatives live with getting a 100% liberal agenda jammed down their throats" (Bill Otis). There is the white unity from which the diversity of colors emerges, and the black unity that denies diversity by blending all the colors.

Likewise, Jimmy Carter is a transparently loathsome, vicious, and poisonous human being who is not only clueless to his evildoing, but sanctimoniously imagines that he is morally superior to the rest of us. Carter will never know how toxic he is, even though (or, more precisely, because) the toxins leak out everywhere, and we must bear them. And yet, he is at peace.

Indeed, Carter is a man of peace. But like so many others of his ilk -- Gandhi comes to mind -- he's really just a peaceive aggressive S.O.B. in denial of his belligerent parasites. Never trust a peace-monger, unless they happen to be carrying a big sword and know how to consciously use it, and whom to use it upon. Righteous aggression is infinitely preferable to the morally depraved passive-aggressiveness of the left, who are quite naturally kind to the cruel (e.g., Hamas) while being cruel to the kind.

Anyway, just as the immune system is based upon a sophisticated system of identification in which your body is able to distinguish self from not-self, the more you know about your mind parasites, the less likely you will be to act them out in the manner of yesterday's "enlightened" troll, who is the only person who is unaware of his samskary monsters. In short, if you are unaware of your mind parasites, someone else will be, for I regret to inform you that We Are the World, and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

This is the peril of living in the "human community," which is a vast field of projection, for better and worse; without projection, we could never become human, but pathological projection leaves us either less than or "all too" human. Thus the wise words of Jesus, "watch and pray," or pray while keeping one eye on your mind parasites, so they don't prey on you -- or others.

Reminds me of a Big Joe Turner song, in which he assures his scheming woman,

If you see me sleeping, baby, Please don't think that I'm drunk.I got one eye on my pistolAnd the other one on my trunk.

***Leftists have hijacked the educational establishment to use it as a huge projective field in which to infect children and young adults with their mind parasites. Dr. Sanity:

"Taking the mind of a child and feeding it exclusively on your ideological pablum is not only the most cruel and abusive of behaviors; it also ensures that such a mind becomes cognitively stunted and morally impaired (much like the minds of teachers so steeped in ideological bullshit like Bill Ayers and his cohorts from the 'loving' 60's, who so proudly and caually approve of oppression and violence toward those who disagree with them)."

47 Comments:

I also tend to think that guilt plays a big part especially in the Hollywood Leftist. They truly feel guilty that they are overpaid obscene amounts of money for sitting around a set all day and maybe reciting a few lines. Everyone outside of Hollywood adores them and wants to emulate them. This causes even more guilt because they have such low self-esteem under all the make-up and lights. They just hope no one finds out and make everyone who works for them sign a confidentiality agreement. Probably the greatest tantrums in the twentieth century are only known by a few insiders! LOL...

Another note, my family is from Freehold, NJ and my aunt was friends with Springsteen in high school. My grandfather kicked him out of his basement with a shotgun one day when he caught Bruce making out with a girl down there. Too bad he didn't actually shoot. My mom vaguely remembers him and always thought he was just a hair above being retarded. She is critical but I believe she may have pegged him this time. So, why people put any stock into anything he says is beyond me.

Bob, can you do nothing other than set up straw men in order to make it easy to knock them down.

Nothing that you or your various commenters have said bears any relation to the truth about me.

The points I made were the following;

You don't understand Popper or what Falsification or a priori actually mean.

The metaphysics of science are incompatible with the metaphysics of Christianity.

In relation to the question about my handle, I explained how all existence shares a Unified Nature and that this entails the illusory[or more accurately, Empty] nature of self and other.

Now, from these statements, you and others jumped to wholly inaccurate and unwarranted conclusions about what I must think or what I must be like. You also did not bother to seek clarification or actually try to discuss or argue any of the assertions I made.

No doubt this is easier than actually engaging in discourse, but it is shoddy behavior and completely unfair and dishonest.

We agree on some things and disagree on others. Is this too much for you to handle? Can you only deal with those willing to have complete agreement?

Namu,presuming that you are not *consciously* a troll, please hang out here quietly for a while and see how Bob responds to people who don't agree with him completely, but who still approach with the normal courtesy of a stranger coming into someone else's building.

Take your time. You may learn something, or you may get bored. Either would be good.

The idea of outgrowing mind parasites is a very appealing one. I believe this is what normally happens when people grow up. As teens and young adults, it is normal to be overwhelmed by feelings and thoughts we have little control over. As we grow and mature (for those who do), those same things make less and less waves and may fade from sight, first for those around us and sometimes even ourselves.

But some people grow faster and for longer. Unfortunately much of the growth is invisible to others, as it is in depth. Those on the surface will only see that the water is stiller, and suppose that there is simply less wind.

The question is not whether we are pleasing to a given troll, but on the contrary whether the troll is pleasing to us. It is out of the question to make a given troll’s stay as agreeable as possible; we can have no motive to desire his visit, it is he who desires to see us and who therefore must make himself intelligible and acceptable; we do not ask anything of anytroll, it is clearly trolls who ask something of us, otherwise they would not come.

It's been my experience as well that mind parasites, even when "contained," never sleep. My own expression has been that they "doze, with one eye open."

"Watching" and "vigilance" go-with the higher territory, as far as I can tell; any occupation of higher ground will involve "attention." It's like the oxygen that sustains the altitude, if it can be maintained.

I'm always amazed at how often I am willing to space-out, and just hang out in my head, willy-nilly. Oooh, this must make mind parasites very happy!

And as an occasional listener to Air America, I can tell you there's a whole lot of projectin' going on out there!

Petey, Indeed I do ask something of you; Rationality, the basic norm of discourse. This requires fairness and honesty, among other things.

Hoarhey, the question of 'what is a human being' seems a question aimed to ensnare since there are many possible answers, depending on which mode of explanation one uses, and whichever I give you will attack that answer as being limited.

One could say a human being is a Great Ape, a Homo Sapiens, The religious animal, Nothing, No-Thing, A Phenomenal descriptor, part of the Unified Field of Being, a conundrum wrapped in a riddle, and many more things I'm sure.

"Why is it that these Buddhist trolls who believe the self is an illusion always have the most unattractive selves? I suppose it's like an unappealing woman who becomes a feminist and decides that gender is just a social construct anyway, so she can pretend she's not missing anything."

"Jimmy Carter is a transparently loathsome, vicious, and poisonous human being..."Jimmy Carter, a human being? You're too kind to the author of "Gone With the Wind meets the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." He rather strongly reminds me of Golem, "My precious, my precious" What do you think is most precious to Jimmieee?

All Bob said was that you are the only person here who cannot clearly discern your own mental parasites -- parasites which are plainly evident to those sensitive to such things.

You simply confirm your own self-ignorance.

We all see you for what you are. Don't despair though. I -- and probably other people here -- was once as benighted as you are (and anyone making the sort of statements you've made in the past couple days is most assuredly benighted; high-IQ idiocy is the very worst kind, by far).

Some Raccoons might be interested to know that they will soon release the new edition of the Orthodox Study Bible. It's been out of print for awhile. The new edition contains both the Old and New Testaments.

namu de boo-boo said "Petey, Indeed I do ask something of you; Rationality, the basic norm of discourse. This requires fairness and honesty, among other things."

Ask not what Petey can do for you, ask what you can do for yourself. Rationality? You read Gagdad's post... all of it... and you seized on an incidental summation in order to barge in and declare, in the most polite and civil tones possible:

"Your comments "demonstrates a profound non-understanding of the subject on which you are attempting to comment", "Error the first; You sug...", "This completely non-understands the meaning of 'Falsifiable', in every possible sense, 'Metaphysics' and 'a pri...”, and "You should stick to things which you understand. I leave it an open question as to whether that is an empty set or not."

... you get the point? Maybe not... English doesn't seems to be a language you somewhat non-understand, I'll spell it out for you, You sir are a troll, and if you don't understand that, brush up on your English, then give it another whirl.

"....aphysics is its a priori character. And what makes something a priori is the very fact that it cannot be falsified. For something to be falsified you mus.."

Now, as to the theory you don't believe in, but merely feel compelled to defend and 'correct' as stridently as possible, if you believe that Popper's ideas were other than an attempt to refurbish skepticism from Humes 'we can know nothing' to his own 'you can temporarily accept what you can't refute, as long as you try a whole bunch of times to refute it'... which incidentally was quite well captioned as "... is like saying that "no" is the key to "yes." , then not only do you not understand Popper's theories, but more importantly your grasp on his underlying philosophy is no better than your assexertion that modern science began with Spinoza (what was that from, wiki?).

"...Error the second; Neither Popper, nor nearly any other Philosophers of Science who discuss Falsifiability, assert that Falsifiability is the 'key to knowledge'. Instead, they think Falsifiability to be the k..."

Popper also wrote on history and political philosophy, not just science. Whatever disintegrated view you may have of the world, I assure you, that Popper extended the fundamentals of his philosophy, his 'Critical Rationalism', into all of his ideas.

Not to spend too much time on Popper, but seeing as though its about the only thing you've actually said, for those who'd like to verify what I've said by reading between the lines of an admiring page on Popper, presumably by certifiably non-dumb people at Stanford who presumably don't "demonstrates a profound non-understanding of the subject", can do so here..

Popper was an unrepentant admirer of Hume, and a repentant admirer of Marxism. He was a rationalist who thoroughly bought into Humean skepticism "Popper is unusual amongst contemporary philosophers in that he accepts the validity of the Humean critique of induction" yet " However, he does not concede that this entails the scepticism which is associated with Hume". So in an attempt to have his cake and eat it too... or in this case, maybe better stated as an attempt to Not have his cake and eat it too, he denied the validity of induction (and by the way everything you learned about the world, as do children without exception, was learned by induction), asserted that you can never truly know anything, but it could somehow be made valid if you made "a genuinely ‘risky’ prediction, which might conceivably have been false", only then have you done something that can scientifically be evaluated.

Whatever his intentions, by convincing so many that induction is invalid, that scientific theories are arbitrary concoctions - the more 'risky' the better, and that the absence of falsehood rather than the presence of truth is all you can bank on, that has had a profound and destructive affect on the idea of knowledge altogether.

And a free tip: if you buy into a theory which is false, because you don't see why it isn't true, you risk finding yourself looking at the world through its lens.

"...Another Error; Popper would not say that a hypothesis is untrue because it is unfalsifiable, but that it is unscientific becau..."

That’s weird. The boss treats me like an assistant editor.But that’s a gig I signed-up for. Sort of. Grew into the job, really. Assistant-editor-by-osmosis. Or was it the other way around?Anyway, one of these days I’ll put my foot down…

Men of demonic nature know neither what they ought to do, nor what they should refrain from doing. There is no truth in them, or purity, or right conduct. Because of the darkness of their little minds, these loathsome creatures do horrible deeds, and are the enemies of mankind. They are arrogant, vain, and drunk with pride. They run blindly after what is evil. The ends they work for are unclean. These malignant creatures are full of egoism, vanity, lust, wrath, and consciousness of power. They loath me, and are enemies of all men and of myself; cruel, despicable and vile. I cast them back again and again into the wombs of degraded parents. They do not reach me, but sink down to the lowest possible condition of the soul.

Van, I whole heartedly agree that anyone who is interested should check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Popper. If one would do that, and re-read what I wrote they would see that the two are perfectly in line.

I re-read the Stanford article after reading Bob's post, before I posted, to make sure that my recollections of Popper and Falsification were consistent with it. The Stanford Encyclopedia is a staple of my online reading.

You said:

Now, as to the theory you don't believe in, but merely feel compelled to defend and 'correct' as stridently as possible...

Why you made the inference that I think Popper's views are true is hard to understand. I merely pointed out that Bob didn't understand what Popper was talking about, and that it is foolish and irresponsible to give an ignorant exegesis.

you said:

is no better than your assexertion that modern science began with Spinoza (what was that from, wiki?)

First, I didn't say that modern science began with Spinoza. I said, after qualifying the statement as being only part of a much bigger story, that the metaphysics of Science were not an outgrowth of Christian metaphysics but that Spinoza, among others, was a particularly strong influence on both the metaphysics underlying metaphysics as well as Modernity. Its clear Spinoza wasn't doing science and just as clear that I never claimed he was.

If you want to read about Spinoza and these issues a good book to start with is Betraying Spinoza by Rebecca Goldstein. There is also the obvious connection between Einstein and Spinoza; Einstein having great respect for Spinoza and saying his god was the god of Spinoza.

That Descartes would disagree is irrelevant. Spinoza's work on Metaphysics has all the strengths of Descartes and solves all of his major problems. Descartes[poorly and popularly understood] breeds skepticism, not Spinoza.

you said:

Popper also wrote on history and political philosophy, not just science. Whatever disintegrated view you may have of the world, I assure you, that Popper extended the fundamentals of his philosophy, his 'Critical Rationalism', into all of his ideas.

Yes, Popper did write on these other topics and did have a Philosophy which coherently dealt both with his Philosophy of Science and other areas of the subject, but this doesn't entail that Popper saw Falsification as a necessary condition of knowledge generally. The Falsification Principle itself would fail to meet its own standards if Falsification was a necessary condition for all knowledge. Whats more, Popper was certainly aware of this fact because it was his chief objection to the verification principle put forward by the Logical Positivists.

Your interest in the problem of Induction strikes me as odd, similarly as to what originally struck me as odd about Bob's talk of Falsification in relation to metaphysics and the a priori.

If one is actually doing metaphysics, then Induction and Falsification simply don't come into play. Metaphysics is concerned with Deduction and with that which could, in principle, never be falsified. It is more akin to Logic than to Science.

This, of course, doesn't mean that you are necessarily wrong about Hume and Popper[though I'm not convinced you are right either] and their effect on Skepticism, but its relevance to metaphysics is questionable at best. There is a difference between Philosophy of Science and Metaphysics.

In their book Fashionable Nonsense, the physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont criticized falsifiability on the grounds that it does not accurately describe the way science really works. They argue that theories are used because of their successes, not because of the failures of other theories.

In their discussion of Popper, falsifiability and the philosophy of science, Sokal and Bricmont make clear their own views of what constitutes truth, in contrast with the extreme epistemological relativism of postmodernism.

Sokal and Bricmont write, "When a theory successfully withstands an attempt at falsification, a scientist will, quite naturally, consider the theory to be partially confirmed and will accord it a greater likelihood or a higher subjective probability... But Popper will have none of this: throughout his life he was a stubborn opponent of any idea of 'confirmation' of a theory, or even of its 'probability' ... [but] the history of science teaches us that scientific theories come to be accepted above all because of their successes."

They further argue that falsifiability cannot distinguish between astrology and astronomy, as both make technical predictions that are sometimes incorrect.

The philosophy of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn are very similar - they argue that truth is evolving and can never be absolutely known. As it turns out they were wrong, thus ultimately harmful for the evolution of Human Knowledge.

It is important to explain and solve Popper because many scientists believe that Truth is always an approximation which is constantly evolving. In fact this is not the case, the solution to Metaphysics (to explain the One thing, Space, which must necessarily connect the Many things, matter) is a final solution, an Absolute and Eternal Truth, as there is nothing more simple than One, thus no further evolution of theories is possible. Thus Popper's negative solution to the Problem of Induction must now be discarded.

No doubt. If to be man means the possibility of transcending oneself intellectually, Kantianism is the negation of all that is essentially and integrally human.

Negations on this scale are always accompanied by a sort of moral fault which makes them less excusable than if it were merely a question of intellectual narrowness: the Kantists, failing to understand "dogmatic metaphysics," do not notice the enormous disproportion between the intellectual and human greatness of those they label as "metaphysical dogmatists" and the illusions which they attribute to them.

Yet even if allowance be made for such a lack of understanding, it seems that any honest man ought to be sensitive, if only indirectly, to the human level of these "dogmatists" — what is evidence in metaphysics becomes "dogma" for those who do not understand it.

Whereas the metaphysician intends to come back to the "first word" — the word of primordial Intellection — the modern philosopher on the contrary wishes to have the "last word"; thus Comte imagines that after two inferior stages — namely "theology" and "metaphysics" — finally comes the "positive" or "scientific" stage which gloriously reduces itself to the most outward and coarse experiences. It starts from a sentimental instinct which wants to destroy everything in order to renew everything in the sense of a desacralized and totally "humanist" and profane world.

nom de poof said " First, I didn't say that modern science began with Spinoza. I said, after qualifying the statement as being only part of a mu..."

You do realize this is the internet, right? "The rationalism which Spinoza clearly and forcefully demonstrated in the Ethics is very sensibly seen as the true beginning of Science as well as Modernity itself."

Perhaps you meant the word 'Spinoza' to link it to the previous sentence... doesn't work well... goes back to that non-understanding of English...is that due to it being your second language, or just public schooling?

Whatever."a good book to start with is Betraying Spinoza by Rebecca Goldstein..."

Thanks for the Spinoza tip, but as a former admirer of, and still having respect for him, though no longer agreement, I prefer to read Spinoza on Spinoza.

"Spinoza's work on Metaphysics has all the strengths of Descartes and solves all of his major problems."

Descartes problems, major and minor, start with "I think, therefore I am", and permeate all that follows.

I will refrain from taunting laughter and further comments as to avoid being brained by my wife who is insisting I help clean NOW. Will return to later.

"Your interest in the problem of Induction strikes me as odd, similarly as to what originally struck me as odd about Bob's talk of Fa..."

Thanks.

"If one is actually doing metaphysics, then Induction and Falsification simply don't come into pl..."

Whatever your assertions - believed by you or not - it is obvious by what you say, that you've bought into the same fundamentals; whether those be the full blown fundamentals of Kant, or the half measures and baby steps of Hume, Spinoza & Descartes, or the unblinking acceptance of the 'obviously true' of academia - it is apparent from your questions, comments and arguments, that you view the world through their intellectual lens.

Frithjof and "A Neutral Observer", I fully agree. Kants system, is the most anti-reality, anti-moral, anti-truth, anti-Man system of thought to ever to plague mankind. The most insidious part is that even though the surface fluff of obvious flaws were discredited within a few decades, the fundamentals which separate man from reality are present and accounted for in everyone from Hegel, to Marx to Dewey, Popper, Kuhn and on and on and on... even those who explicitly style themselves as being anti-kantian, regurgitate him through their every scheme of intellectual epicycles.

"I wish that Springsteen would just stop voting against his economic interests and leave me alone. "

Without pretending to speak for The Boss, I'm reasonably certain he'd send the same sentiments your way, perhaps substituting "emotional" for "economic".

Sling it, Bob Man, as only you can do. After all Bruce is doing it and as you said, you stand a decent chance of becoming that which you look up to. Or hate. Same difference, right? Still simple, right??

What the..! I thought I was sending a comment to a self-styled pundit, and suddenly I'm hobnobbing with a stylized self-parody! Aw, what the hey Dupree. Who wants to talk about him anyway? Can you dance in the dark?

Later, over a glass of house beer:

"Dupe, honey, you say you know & love music like you know & love common man – Isn't it a shame what Bruce did to that Manfred Mann song? And have you heard that new Cosmosis album Somewhere Over the RainBob? Brilliantly self-indulgent, in an envy transference kind of way. Oh, never mind a response you brute! Let's dance!

The dark side's comin now nothing is realOl' Yeller's giving the same ol speelFrom out of the shadows he whimpers like a spleen...Makes me feel lazy, like debatin' a teenNothin gonna save you from a mutt that blindFlip to the left side and moon that swine

But now I'm confused... isn't disinformation dispensed with great emotion a leftist trait? Aw, never mind. Who needs the facts when a simple "leftist" pout carries the ring of truthiness or at least sounds sarcastic – which for the crowd you run with may be enough. BTW, coonskin, beaver skin, in dim light who's to know, right? Only You and God know the fakers, right?

And Hoarhey, you old warthog, nice to read you, even if you are late for the dance. Patience my friend. You'll get toes to mash soon enough.

Yes, I would guess that an arse does become a rose after such a long time following the leader. And "moron". My my. Such powers of discernment. Betcha can't guess my weight...

And FYI, both Springsteen and Obama have been exposed for the Closet Republicans they really are, which proves Bob's point about Envy Projection being not a theory cooked up by some Envious Self-Saving Symbiotic Mind Parasite Host*, but being in Truth and Actuality really for real and stuff.

In other words, I'm with you guys, man!

Now Hoarhey, I thought you were getting me a drink.

*(ESSSMPH, (pronounced assff!) for short. Just make a silent fart sound. As the coon manifesto clearly states, those of us who already know will continue to do so. As for the rest of you, go ESSSMPH yourseffs.

Yeah Van, sometimes it is a pain being me. I don't have trouble admitting that. Most of the time though I feel blessed, not cursed. As for the sympathies, hey. Keep 'em coming. Any compassion emanating from the OC camp is a good thing, particularly when it's directed at a perceived non-coon. That's like, groundbreaking.

As for the missed jab, nothing like being hit in the face so hard you don't know it. I didn't think you were that smart. I'll try to give you more musical credit next time. But after the brash display of musicillogical one-upsmanship displayed by Herr Leder and the Goosesteppers, ain't I allowed this one?

Huh. Mea culpa. You really are as smart as I thought you were Van, uncovering me (Nags, natch- BUSTED!) as the singular entity on the internet who could dare disagree with the benign spittle that daily flies from feckless leader's rational lips.

"Nags'... grow up and grow a pair. Sheesh."

I can't return the interest in your cajones Van – it's your pair of legs, eyes, and brain halves I'd like to see you utilize. We'd all be better off for it.

Explore while you can. It's been shown over and again that too much OC reduces one's ability to cultivate new friendships.

Links to this post:

About Me

Location: Floating in His Cloud-Hidden Bobservatory, Inside the Centers for Spiritual Disease Control and Pretension, Tonga

Who spirals down the celestial firepole on wings of slack, seizes the wheel of the cosmic bus, and embarks upin a bewilderness adventure of higher nondoodling? Who, haloed be his gnome, loiters on the threshold of the transdimensional doorway, looking for handouts from Petey? Who, with his doppelgägster and testy snideprick, Cousin Dupree, wields the pliers and blowtorch of fine insultainment for the ridicure of assouls? Who is the gentleman loaffeur who yoinks the sword from the stoned philosopher and shoves it in the breadbasket of metaphysical ignorance and tenure? Whose New Testavus for the Restavus blows the locked doors of the empyrean off their rusty old hinges and sheds a beam of intense darkness on the world enigma? Who is the Biggest Fakir of the Vertical Church of God Knows What, channeling the roaring torrent of 〇 into the feeble stream of cyberspace? Who is the masked pandit who lobs the first water balloon out the motel window at the annual Raccoon convention? Who is your nonlocal partner in disorganized crimethink? Shut your mouth! But I'm talkin' about bʘb! Then we can dig it!